Gunshots inside a house, screaming, and blood outside was exigent circumstances. [Yet it was argued it wasn\u2019t. Hey, sometimes we have to.] United States v. Vanhorn, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127261 (E.D.Tex. September 21, 2015).<\/p>\n
A doctor was denied qualified immunity for seizing a child from a family without exigent circumstances. Taking the inferences from the discovery and resolving doubts for the plaintiff, they have enough to get the case to the jury, and the rights were clearly established. Jones v. County of L.A.<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16725 (9th Cir. September 21, 2015) (2-1).*<\/p>\n The officers lied to an apartment manager that they looked through an apartment window and saw that it was abandoned. In fact, they couldn\u2019t see that through the window. The landlord took them for protection to the apartment to get in. Inside, there was the stench of rotten food, the electricity was off, there were no clothes or other personal possessions. The Georgia Court of Appeals found the apartment abandoned. Considering the \u201cdouble deference\u201d of 2254 review, reasonable jurists could not disagree with that conclusion, although slightly suggesting that if they were the first court to review the search on appeal they\u2019d have pause with that decision. Pineda v. Warden, Calhoun State Prison<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16730 (11th Cir. September 21, 2015).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gunshots inside a house, screaming, and blood outside was exigent circumstances. [Yet it was argued it wasn\u2019t. Hey, sometimes we have to.] United States v. Vanhorn, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127261 (E.D.Tex. September 21, 2015). A doctor was denied qualified … Continue reading